Federer > Woods

[gocolts 300]

[t.j 35]

I don't agree with most of this. Cmon t.j, plenty of matches go 7-6, 3-6, 7-6...

 

I looked through all of Federer's tournament matches dating back to January 2005 (takes too long to look at any more), and all of the grand slam matches in his career. I didn't find a single one where Federer lost more games than he won, but still won the match.

 

I found another where he won more games but lost the match.

ATP Masters Series Miami, 19-Mar-07, O, Hard

R16 Canas, Guillermo (ARG) 55 6-7(2) 6-2 6-7(5)

 

And yet another where he won more games but lost the match.

ATP Masters Series Rome, 8-May-06, O, Clay

F Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 2 7-6 6-7(5) 4-6 6-2 6-7(5)

 

And yet another...

Grand Slam US Open, 28-Aug-00, O, Hard

R32 Ferrero, Juan Carlos (ESP) 12 5-7 6-7(6) 6-1 6-7(6)

 

http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/play...asp?player=F324

[mayhem39 3]

I looked through all of Federer's tournament matches dating back to January 2005 (takes too long to look at any more), and all of the grand slam matches in his career. I didn't find a single one where Federer lost more games than he won, but still won the match.

 

I found another where he won more games but lost the match.

ATP Masters Series Miami, 19-Mar-07, O, Hard

R16 Canas, Guillermo (ARG) 55 6-7(2) 6-2 6-7(5)

 

And yet another where he won more games but lost the match.

ATP Masters Series Rome, 8-May-06, O, Clay

F Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 2 7-6 6-7(5) 4-6 6-2 6-7(5)

 

And yet another...

Grand Slam US Open, 28-Aug-00, O, Hard

R32 Ferrero, Juan Carlos (ESP) 12 5-7 6-7(6) 6-1 6-7(6)

 

http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/play...asp?player=F324

 

 

It's all a matter of opinion guys. I happen to agree with shonuff and disagree with you and Edjr. If you really take an unbiased look at this thing though...it really isn't close. Tiger has been more dominant in a sport that should not be dominated by one person. There are too many good players in golf for that to happen but somehow Tiger is dominating. What he is doing in golf right now everyone should feel priviledged to have been around to see it. It will not happen again for a very long time, if ever. The tennis competition has declined rapidly imo. You can say that I don't have any facts to back it up and I can say you don't have any facts to dispute it.

[edjr 5,567]

If you really take an unbiased look at this thing though...it really isn't close.

 

[KSB2424 3,083]

I shall oficially dub this the "Seinfeld Thread". An 11 page thread about.....well....nothing.

[t.j 35]

It's all a matter of opinion guys. I happen to agree with shonuff and disagree with you and Edjr. If you really take an unbiased look at this thing though...it really isn't close. Tiger has been more dominant in a sport that should not be dominated by one person. There are too many good players in golf for that to happen but somehow Tiger is dominating. What he is doing in golf right now everyone should feel priviledged to have been around to see it. It will not happen again for a very long time, if ever. The tennis competition has declined rapidly imo. You can say that I don't have any facts to back it up and I can say you don't have any facts to dispute it.

 

You don't have any facts to back up the rest of what you said, either.

"it really isn't close"

"Tiger has been more dominant in a sport that should not be dominated by one person."

"There are too many good players in golf for that to happen"

"It will not happen again for a very long time, if ever"

No facts.

 

Now there's one part of that that I want to comment on:

 

Tiger has been more dominant in a sport that should not be dominated by one person.

 

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too here. If you're going to make separate issues for 1. how dominant is the player in his sport and 2. how difficult is the sport to dominate, then I don't see how you can say that Federer isn't more dominant in his sport.

11 Grand Slams in 8 years as a pro for Federer, including 6 of the last 8.

13 Majors in 12 years as a pro for Woods, including 3 of the last 8.

Federer is 5 years younger and he's only two GS/Majors behind, while currently on a pace of winning 3 per year.

 

Now you can argue all day long that golf is more difficult to dominate. I don't agree with that but at least there are some good sensible arguments that can be made on that side of the case. IMO it's a wash as to which sport is more difficult to dominate, impossible to determine. However, it's ridiculous to suggest that Woods dominates golf more than Federer dominates tennis. Five years ago, Tiger was the man. Right now, Roger is the man.

[jocstrap 8]

. The tennis competition has declined rapidly imo.

 

 

Tennis competition has only declined in America...not the world. Our country (United States Tennis Association or United States Professional Tennis Association) doesn't assist in any way for our young American talent to improve. Hell I was a national champ in college and all I got was a wild card into the US open, not a sniff at a sponsor or any type of contact. Roddick nor Blake will ever be great so they aren't the anwers. The only thing American's can route for in tennis are the Bryan Brothers. When we get two guys from the USA to come along and consitently get to finals of Grand slams like Agassi and Sampras, Mcenroe and Connors, tennis in America will be on the rise again - - Cycles

 

Now if Federer wins this upcoming US open at the end of August that will be 3 out of 4 this year with a loss in the French open finals. Put that on top of his 5 Wimbledons in a row which hasn't been done since the Borg Era. So talk about something special, that feat hasn't been accomplished since the late 70's.

[edjr 5,567]

I shall oficially dub this the "Seinfeld Thread". An 11 page thread about.....well....nothing.

 

Absolutely.

 

I created this thread so I'm right.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too here. If you're going to make separate issues for 1. how dominant is the player in his sport and 2. how difficult is the sport to dominate, then I don't see how you can say that Federer isn't more dominant in his sport.

11 Grand Slams in 8 years as a pro for Federer, including 6 of the last 8.

13 Majors in 12 years as a pro for Woods, including 3 of the last 8.

Federer is 5 years younger and he's only two GS/Majors behind, while currently on a pace of winning 3 per year.

 

Now you can argue all day long that golf is more difficult to dominate. I don't agree with that but at least there are some good sensible arguments that can be made on that side of the case. IMO it's a wash as to which sport is more difficult to dominate, impossible to determine. However, it's ridiculous to suggest that Woods dominates golf more than Federer dominates tennis. Five years ago, Tiger was the man. Right now, Roger is the man.

 

Except for the fact that tennis is a younger man's game. Look through your history books and you will see that tennis is typically dominated by men who are younger than 30. Golf is dominated by men who are older than 30. Federer is heading out of his prime and Tiger is just getting into his.

[t.j 35]

Except for the fact that tennis is a younger man's game. Look through your history books and you will see that tennis is typically dominated by men who are younger than 30. Golf is dominated by men who are older than 30. Federer is heading out of his prime and Tiger is just getting into his.

 

It's true that Federer is close to the end of his prime, but all that means is that Woods will retain his dominance longer. Doesn't change anything in terms of Federer being the king right now and for probably the next 3-5 years. As for Tiger just getting into his prime, we will see about that. Age-wise it makes sense, but whether he will actually improve remains to be seen.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

It's true that Federer is close to the end of his prime, but all that means is that Woods will retain his dominance longer. Doesn't change the fact that right now, and probably for the next 3-5 years at least, Federer is king. As for Tiger just getting into his prime, we will see about that. Age-wise it makes sense, but whether he will actually improve remains to be seen.

 

Well, your "fact" is certainly disputed in the 11 pages prior. I like how you made that leap in your comments, with not a whole heck of a lot to back it up

[t.j 35]

Well, your "fact" is certainly disputed in the 11 pages prior. I like how you made that leap in your comments, with not a whole heck of a lot to back it up

 

You're right, it's not a fact, that was careless and wrong wording on my part. I said that more of a manner of speaking, rather than an attempt to make a point about fact/opinion like the mayhem39 discussion earlier. Edited above to correct.

Anyway, my point was simply that Federer's impending age issue has no bearing on his past and present domination of the sport.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

You're right, it's not a fact, that was careless and wrong wording on my part. I said that more of a manner of speaking, rather than an attempt to make a point about fact/opinion like the mayhem39 discussion earlier. Edited above to correct.

Anyway, my point was simply that Federer's impending age issue has no bearing on his past and present domination of the sport.

 

I disagree. Federer has had a great run in his prime. Tiger has had an equally impressive run before his prime. I think that counts for something in this debate.

[t.j 35]

I disagree. Federer has had a great run in his prime. Tiger has had an equally impressive run before his prime. I think that counts for something in this debate.

 

Again, it remains to be seen whether Tiger improves in and/or beyond his 30s.

I don't agree that it counts for something in the debate.

[mayhem39 3]

You don't have any facts to back up the rest of what you said, either.

"it really isn't close"

"Tiger has been more dominant in a sport that should not be dominated by one person."

"There are too many good players in golf for that to happen"

"It will not happen again for a very long time, if ever"

No facts.

 

Now there's one part of that that I want to comment on:

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too here. If you're going to make separate issues for 1. how dominant is the player in his sport and 2. how difficult is the sport to dominate, then I don't see how you can say that Federer isn't more dominant in his sport.

11 Grand Slams in 8 years as a pro for Federer, including 6 of the last 8.

13 Majors in 12 years as a pro for Woods, including 3 of the last 8.

Federer is 5 years younger and he's only two GS/Majors behind, while currently on a pace of winning 3 per year.

 

Now you can argue all day long that golf is more difficult to dominate. I don't agree with that but at least there are some good sensible arguments that can be made on that side of the case. IMO it's a wash as to which sport is more difficult to dominate, impossible to determine. However, it's ridiculous to suggest that Woods dominates golf more than Federer dominates tennis. Five years ago, Tiger was the man. Right now, Roger is the man.

 

I can say that he isnt more dominant because that is my OPINION...if you learn how to read let me know. Just like it is your opinion that Federer is more dominant. You aren't going to convince me of that. It is my opinion that Federer has played against weak competition. You put him back in the era of Mac and Borg and Connors and Lendl and Becker and Wilander and Edberg and Courier and he doesnt do what he has done. Its just that simple.

[jocstrap 8]

It is my opinion that Federer has played against weak competition. You put him back in the era of Mac and Borg and Connors and Lendl and Becker and Wilander and Edberg and Courier and he doesnt do what he has done. Its just that simple.

 

 

This is a ridiculous comparison. How about Federer is in the company of NADAL who never freakin misses a shot and is as fast as it gets....Roddick who has clocked the HARDEST SERVE OF ALL TIME AT 144ish, Then another group of foreign guys I really don't care much about. The competition is as great as it ever has been. We just don't know the names because they are foreigners that we can't pronounce.

 

Now tell me 5 other guys that played in the Mac/Borg/Connors era that were even close to those guys? Lendl took fitness training to a new level for the time and dominated. Your Wilander,Edberg and Courier statements aren't even in the same league. Why not throw out a Rafter, Muster, Ivanisivic, Safin, Michael Stich, Michael Chang, Noah, Vilas etc. I bet you forgot about a few of those names.

 

Just like today, names that are so easily forgotten but they are very very good. To say the competition is weak is foolish and is obviously a statement from someone that doesn't know shiet about this sport.

[mayhem39 3]

This is a ridiculous comparison. How about Federer is in the company of NADAL who never freakin misses a shot and is as fast as it gets....Roddick who has clocked the HARDEST SERVE OF ALL TIME AT 144ish, Then another group of foreign guys I really don't care much about. The competition is as great as it ever has been. We just don't know the names because they are foreigners that we can't pronounce.

 

Now tell me 5 other guys that played in the Mac/Borg/Connors era that were even close to those guys? Lendl took fitness training to a new level for the time and dominated. Your Wilander,Edberg and Courier statements aren't even in the same league. Why not throw out a Rafter, Muster, Ivanisivic, Safin, Michael Stich, Michael Chang, Noah, Vilas etc. I bet you forgot about a few of those names.

 

Just like today, names that are so easily forgotten but they are very very good. To say the competition is weak is foolish and is obviously a statement from someone that doesn't know shiet about this sport.

 

 

Well, you named more than another five. Sorry, I disagree with you. It's an opinion....take it as that.

[jocstrap 8]

Well, you named more than another five. Sorry, I disagree with you. It's an opinion....take it as that.

 

 

I named a whole slew of guys since the Borg and Connors era. These guys were in the 80's and 90's except for vilas who had a tragic poisoning death. Why don't you name me 5 guys from 1985 and before? Maybe Borgs competition was terrible. Then maybe McEnroe's competition was horrible, then maybe Connors competition was horrible then Lendel's. After that, Edberg had no one to compete against, then a Rafter. Then a guy name Sampras had zippo competition except for Aggasi. And now low and behold....Federer has run out of competition. Do you see what I'm getting at? So all of these guys throughout the past 25 years had no competition?

 

I know Federer has very very tough competition even though you don't know there names.

 

And an Austin in Golf is all world? Talk about no competition. Vijay and Mickelson didn't even make the cut. Daly ranked 400+ in the world was the leader? Where are the steady studs of golf to compete with Woods?

[mayhem39 3]

I named a whole slew of guys since the Borg and Connors era. These guys were in the 80's and 90's except for vilas who had a tragic poisoning death. Why don't you name me 5 guys from 1985 and before? Maybe Borgs competition was terrible. Then maybe McEnroe's competition was horrible, then maybe Connors competition was horrible then Lendel's. After that, Edberg had no one to compete against, then a Rafter. Then a guy name Sampras had zippo competition except for Aggasi. And now low and behold....Federer has run out of competition. Do you see what I'm getting at? So all of these guys throughout the past 25 years had no competition?

 

I know Federer has very very tough competition even though you don't know there names.

 

And an Austin in Golf is all world? Talk about no competition. Vijay and Mickelson didn't even make the cut. Daly ranked 400+ in the world was the leader? Where are the steady studs of golf to compete with Woods?

 

 

Ok, what the hell are you talking about?? Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Vilas etc all played against each other numbnuts!! Thats why I am saying the competition is not near as good now as it was then. What...do you think all of those guys had there own era???

[Sho Nuff 719]

I named a whole slew of guys since the Borg and Connors era. These guys were in the 80's and 90's except for vilas who had a tragic poisoning death. Why don't you name me 5 guys from 1985 and before? Maybe Borgs competition was terrible. Then maybe McEnroe's competition was horrible, then maybe Connors competition was horrible then Lendel's. After that, Edberg had no one to compete against, then a Rafter. Then a guy name Sampras had zippo competition except for Aggasi. And now low and behold....Federer has run out of competition. Do you see what I'm getting at? So all of these guys throughout the past 25 years had no competition?

 

I know Federer has very very tough competition even though you don't know there names.

 

And an Austin in Golf is all world? Talk about no competition. Vijay and Mickelson didn't even make the cut. Daly ranked 400+ in the world was the leader? Where are the steady studs of golf to compete with Woods?

 

Who is claiming Austin is all world?

Noone...but it sort of puts out the point that golf is deeper when a guy like Austin can get hot one week and compete if the course is right for his game.

Mickelson is still a bit dinged up with the wrist...well, and his head from his meltdown on the 18th at the US Open. But I would put Vijay on par with Nadal as far as talent if you want to compare, and Phil is well ahead of just about any other tennis player down the rankings. Then you have guys like Els...

And Daly is 171 on the money list in only 18 events. Oh yeah he has won 2 majors.

[edjr 5,567]

Ok, what the hell are you talking about?? Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Vilas etc all played against each other numbnuts!! Thats why I am saying the competition is not near as good now as it was then. What...do you think all of those guys had there own era???

 

 

They may have played in the same era, but they didn't all play at the same time! you're on crack.

 

Borg dominated, then McEnroe/Connors, Then Lendl, then Wilander, then Edberg/Becker.

 

You think Borg ever played Lendl, Edberg or Becker?

 

A good tennis player can dominate for a couple years, a great one maybe 4 or 5.

 

A golfer can play till he's 50 for christ sakes, Nicklaus won a major at 46.

 

Tennis > Golf

 

Federer > Woods (when the thread was made)

[Sho Nuff 719]

They may have played in the same era, but they didn't all play at the same time! you're on crack.

 

Borg dominated, then McEnroe/Connors, Then Lendl, then Wilander, then Edberg/Becker.

 

You think Borg ever played Lendl, Edberg or Becker?

 

A good tennis player can dominate for a couple years, a great one maybe 4 or 5.

 

A golfer can play till he's 50 for christ sakes, Nicklaus won a major at 46.

 

Tennis > Golf

 

Federer > Woods (when the thread was made)

 

Ummmm...Borg played Lendl in the 1981 French Open Finals

 

And what does it matter how long a player can dominate.

 

Tennis > Golf? hah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mayhem39 3]

I named a whole slew of guys since the Borg and Connors era. These guys were in the 80's and 90's except for vilas who had a tragic poisoning death. Why don't you name me 5 guys from 1985 and before? Maybe Borgs competition was terrible. Then maybe McEnroe's competition was horrible, then maybe Connors competition was horrible then Lendel's. After that, Edberg had no one to compete against, then a Rafter. Then a guy name Sampras had zippo competition except for Aggasi. And now low and behold....Federer has run out of competition. Do you see what I'm getting at? So all of these guys throughout the past 25 years had no competition?

 

I know Federer has very very tough competition even though you don't know there names.

 

And an Austin in Golf is all world? Talk about no competition. Vijay and Mickelson didn't even make the cut. Daly ranked 400+ in the world was the leader? Where are the steady studs of golf to compete with Woods?

 

 

I also wanted to let you know that you are wrong on Vilas. It was Vitas Geralitis that had the poisining death. And yes, he also played in that era.

[mayhem39 3]

They may have played in the same era, but they didn't all play at the same time! you're on crack.

 

Borg dominated, then McEnroe/Connors, Then Lendl, then Wilander, then Edberg/Becker.

 

You think Borg ever played Lendl, Edberg or Becker?

 

A good tennis player can dominate for a couple years, a great one maybe 4 or 5.

 

A golfer can play till he's 50 for christ sakes, Nicklaus won a major at 46.

 

Tennis > Golf

 

Federer > Woods (when the thread was made)

 

 

I could be high on crack and still know more than you. Yes they did play at the same time, thus my opinion that there isnt the competetion now that there was then. Did they all join the pro circuit the same year??? NO, but they definitely all played vs each other for many years. Hell....McEnroe played against Sampras and Agassi for christs sake...I didn't even count them!

[edjr 5,567]

I could be high on crack and still know more than you. Yes they did play at the same time,

 

BORG played the same time as Becker and Edberg?

 

 

HAHAHAHAHAAAAA

 

Borg retired at the end of 1982.

 

Edberg turned pro in 1983 and Becker in 1984

[Sho Nuff 719]

BORG played the same time as Becker and Edberg?

HAHAHAHAHAAAAA

 

Borg retired at the end of 1982.

 

Edberg turned pro in 1983 and Becker in 1984

 

I notice you left out Lendl this time...what's next?

[listen2me 23 1,542]

There has still not been one guy to dispute Tiger's tougher competition (100-140 other golfers each tournement).

 

to

 

Federer's 7 matches.....well about 4 after the first 3 guys who can't compete with any know tennis player.

 

 

Tiger's road to a major is a lot tougher than Federer's. Bottom line. Numbers do not lie. And the numbers are WAY unbalanced.

 

This question doesn't have an answer. But the competition point above cannot be argued.

[mayhem39 3]

BORG played the same time as Becker and Edberg?

HAHAHAHAHAAAAA

 

Borg retired at the end of 1982.

 

Edberg turned pro in 1983 and Becker in 1984

 

 

 

Ok, you may be correct on that but my argument is based on McEnroe.

 

My favorite player of all time in tennis is John McEnroe. He played against every one of those players in his era. Federer couldn't carry Macs jockstrap.

[Strike 3,979]

Ok, you may be correct on that but my argument is based on McEnroe.

 

My favorite player of all time in tennis is John McEnroe. He played against every one of those players in his era. Federer couldn't carry Macs jockstrap.

 

I believe McEnroe is on record as saying Federer is better than him, but I guess you'd know if Federer was better than Mac moreso than Mac himself.

[t.j 35]

Federer couldn't carry Macs jockstrap.

 

You're an idiot! Jerk! Your argument is OUT of bounds! Are you BLIND!

[mayhem39 3]

I believe McEnroe is on record as saying Federer is better than him, but I guess you'd know if Federer was better than Mac moreso than Mac himself.

 

 

You realize how stupid that comment is? What is McEnroe supposed to say...I was better than Federer. He's not going to say that in public.

[mayhem39 3]

You're an idiot! Jerk! Your argument is OUT of bounds! Are you BLIND!

 

 

Go watch a video of both in their prime and tell me Federer is better....I've watched both pal, and it isnt close.

[t.j 35]

Go watch a video of both in their prime and tell me Federer is better....I've watched both pal, and it isnt close.

 

I'm not your pal, and Federer is the best tennis player of all time.

[Strike 3,979]

You realize how stupid that comment is? What is McEnroe supposed to say...I was better than Federer. He's not going to say that in public.

 

Yeah, cause Mcenroe is known for holding back his opinions

 

Seriously, why the hell wouldn't he say that if he thought it was true? And I'm a huge Mac fan but he couldn't compete against the power players after he took his layoff and the new breed of tennis player came on to the scene. His game had the same issues that Hingis had after her early success. Too much finesse and not enough power to go along with it.

[mayhem39 3]

Yeah, cause Mcenroe is known for holding back his opinions

 

Seriously, why the hell wouldn't he say that if he thought it was true? And I'm a huge Mac fan but he couldn't compete against the power players after he took his layoff and the new breed of tennis player came on to the scene. His game had the same issues that Hingis had after her early success. Too much finesse and not enough power to go along with it.

 

Again, that's your opinion. I happen to not agree with it. New breed of tennis player??? You mean the power rackets that took over the game. It hurts the serve and volley game....you probably dont know what that is though..

[mayhem39 3]

I'm not your pal, and Federer is the best tennis player of all time.

 

 

Oh well you've convinced me with that outstanding argument...

[Strike 3,979]

Again, that's your opinion. I happen to not agree with it. New breed of tennis player??? You mean the power rackets that took over the game. It hurts the serve and volley game....you probably dont know what that is though..

 

Yeah, cause Edberg found it impossible to be competitive against those same guys who owned McEnroe after his layoff. Becker did a bit of serve and volley himself me thinks. Sampras was known to serve and volley on occasion as well. As does Federer. Tim Henman has had a fairly decent career as a 100% serve and volleyer. Again, those players except Edberg complement their serve/volley abilities with powerful serves and groundstrokes. Go look at McEncroe's groundstrokes. They were softballs and would get destroyed by any top player of the last 20 years.

[Cruzer 1,992]

Phil Chokelson? When Tiger gets within 400 yards of him he wets his pants.

uh, cept the 3 majors lefty won. if you had any sense you'd know that although phil is 10 majors shy of tiger, he's also had his fair share of on top finishes. phil beat tiger by 13 shots or something at the '01 pga championship at atlanta athletic club. prolly should have won that one had it not been for (what amounted to) a d.toms saturday hole-in-one. i seem to remember phil also besting tiger pretty well at the open played at shinnecock, he had a really good chance to win that one in finishing 2nd. and who could forget the '06 open at winged foot. phil beat tiger pretty well there too, since tiger ddn't even make the cut. but it isn't just these, take the time to look back at some major finishes and you'll see he's not the goat you think he is.

[mayhem39 3]

Yeah, cause Edberg found it impossible to be competitive against those same guys who owned McEnroe after his layoff. Becker did a bit of serve and volley himself me thinks. Sampras was known to serve and volley on occasion as well. As does Federer. Tim Henman has had a fairly decent career as a 100% serve and volleyer. Again, those players except Edberg complement their serve/volley abilities with powerful serves and groundstrokes. Go look at McEncroe's groundstrokes. They were softballs and would get destroyed by any top player of the last 20 years.

 

 

Are you trying to imply that McEnroe did not have a powerful serve? Yes, McEnroe's ground strokes are not what the players have today but he also didnt use the rackets that they have now.

[Strike 3,979]

Are you trying to imply that McEnroe did not have a powerful serve? Yes, McEnroe's ground strokes are not what the players have today but he also didnt use the rackets that they have now.

 

Uh, I'm not gonna imply anything. McEnroe's serve was weak for a top player, after his layoff. He was impossible to read which made it extremely effective but it was not powerful. Before his layoff I'd bet it averaged 95, and after when he knew he had to up it a bit maybe 105. That was one of the problems he had after he came back. Now, as a serve/volleyer you don't necessarily want the fastest serve because if it's too fast you don't have a chance to get to net. Edberg never had a blistering serve, but it was faster than Mac's, and about perfect speed for his game.